When the mob ruled London

Much of life in 18th Century London was lived publicly: people loitered, worked, shopped, stole, ate, drank, had sex, fought, apprehended and punished criminals

THE LONDON MOB: VIOLENCE AND DISORDER IN 18TH-CENTURY ENGLAND by Robert Shoemaker (Hambledon & London, £19.95)

London in the early 18th century was, in many ways, almost a medieval city, villagey and intimate.

Its administration was still divided into parishes, wards and watches, the boundaries of many of them dating back hundreds of years.

Each small area was policed by a rota of local householders. People living close to each other knew their neighbours well and were not afraid of defending or defaming them when their reputations were called into question.

Roads and house numbers were unmarked, so visitors had to rely on landmarks, hanging signs and local knowledge to find their way around the maze of streets in unfamiliar parts of town.

Much of life was lived publicly: people loitered, worked, shopped, stole, ate, drank, had sex, fought, apprehended and punished criminals, took part in political protests or celebrations, all on the street, cheekby-jowl with their neighbours as they had done for hundreds of years.

But London was also a fastdeveloping city. By 1700, its population had increased nearly three times during the previous century, and it almost doubled over the next. It was the administrative, mercantile and financial centre for an expanding empire.

Over the next 100 years, new wealth and innovations in areas such as printing would blur accepted class distinctions. The city was rapidly outgrowing its infrastructure.

In The London Mob, Robert Shoemaker traces the changing ways in which Londoners gathered on their streets over this period, transforming the archaic 17th-century city into one we can recognise today.

Gradually, the teeming streets were used more for travelling than for living.

As tradesmen retreated behind plate-glass windows, as new concepts of privacy and politeness filtered down to the middle-classes, as early crimefighting forces such as Henry and John Fielding's Bow Street Runners began to replace semi- criminal thief-takers, a modern city emerged.

One of the most important changes of this period was in the attitude to rioting. At the start of the century, Londoners regularly took to the streets to celebrate public holidays, mourn executions and protest grievances.

Bonfires banging marrowbones and cleavers, shouting slogans, lighting candlesand wearing rosettes were all methods of demonstrating support for a particular cause.

In 1715, at the time of the Jacobite rebellion, people shouted 'No Hanoverian, no Presbyterian!' or 'King George for ever!' in the streets and wore white roses to show their support for the Pretender, or miniature warming pans, a reference to the Pretender's allegedly illegitimate origins, if they were Whigs.

Effigies of the Pope and Oliver Cromwell were burnt, and on the anniversary of the restoration of Charles II, windows which weren't lit up in support of the Tory cause were smashed.

Risings continued throughout the century - defending radical politician John Wilkes, opposing low-wage Irish labour or new taxes, celebrating a royal wedding or birth - largely tolerated and sometimes encouraged by the authorities.

But in 1780, the devastation caused by the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots finally transformed attitudes to popular demonstrations.

Hundreds of people died and hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage was caused during six days of destruction and looting.

Thereafter, the use of drums and cockades was discouraged, and newspapers and politicians became more cautious about trying to whip up the crowd.

Soldiers were employed more and more frequently to quell riots. The mob was increasingly seen as frightening and outofcontrol, rather than a valuable expression of public opinion.

Voluntary societies and public meetings, taking place inside rather than outside on the streets, were more effective means of amassing widespread support for specific causes.

Individual incidents of violence on the streets also abated during this period. Duels between gentlemen over matters of honour became private affairs, conducted in secret, while fist-fights between working men developed into boxing matches, a spectator sport rather than a way of settling grievances.

Though the overall figures did not rise, murders and assaults taking place indoors began proportionately to outnumber those taking place outside, as the streets became safer.

While means of protesting policy shifted from the public to the private arena, responsibility for policing the streets shifted from individuals to the state.

At the start of this period, a victim of a crime was expected to discover, apprehend and bring his assailant to a magistrate to receive justice. By the end of the century, a victim would report a crime to a Justice of the Peace and expect him to bring the criminal to justice.

Onlookers were increasingly hesitant in responding to cries for help, fearful for their own safety and reluctant to interfere in strangers' business.

Shoemaker's extensive use of primary sources to illustrate his arguments lends this scholarly account of the role of disorder on London's streets freshness and immediacy.

The London Mob is a fascinating, highly detailed analysis of a period of immense change in the history of London and Londoners.